 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / May 2006Is butter really bad for you?
I go to a doctor who says butter is not really bad for you-- maybe he means in comparison to the usual margarine sold in stores---also that eggs are not bad for you --comment ?? > I go to a doctor who says butter is not really bad for you-- maybe he > means in comparison > to the usual margarine sold in stores---also that eggs are not bad for > you --comment ?? Real fresh butter from a healthy well fed cow is extremely healthy for you. Same with eggs. Much more healthy than the highly refined, cooked, and filtered vegetable oils and the highly processed margarines. TC Marlon Brando in /Last Tango in Paris/ managed to put a stick of butter to good use. But, margarine would have done just as well. :( >I go to a doctor who says butter is not really bad for you-- maybe he > means in comparison > to the usual margarine sold in stores---also that eggs are not bad for > you --comment ?? Are atheroschlerotic plaques really bad for you? You decide, it's your carotid artery. George See my posts to the thread entitled, "Is Coconut Oil Healthful?" It is true that eggs are high in cholesterol, so you need to boil them, which keeps the cholesterol from being oxidized. Only oxidized cholesterol can do you harm. It appears that the people who don't understand this are deficient in basic knowledge of biochemistry, because the evidence is there, and has been available to them for several years now. :: I go to a doctor who says butter is not really bad for you-- maybe he :: means in comparison [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : You decide, it's your carotid artery. I agree with George. Choose a good quality (soft) margarine that does not contain hydrogenated fats and no transfats (read the lable). You can consume 1-4 eggs a week but preferably no more.  SignatureJuhana > :: I go to a doctor who says butter is not really bad for you-- maybe he > :: means in comparison [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > consume > 1-4 eggs a week but preferably no more. Egg whites are great low-calorie sources of protein. My wife bakes pumpkin custard with egg whites. We give the yolks to our dogs who love them. We also hard boil eggs. When I eat one, I eat the white part and give the yolk to Greta (poodle) or Emmy (mixed- breed). This makes me happy and them happy. I eat about six egg whites a day. George >> :: I go to a doctor who says butter is not really bad for you-- maybe he >> :: means in comparison [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > breed). This makes me happy and them happy. I > eat about six egg whites a day. How are your dogs? N. >>> :: I go to a doctor who says butter is not really bad for you-- maybe he >>> :: means in comparison [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > How are your dogs? Flourishing. We take into account the egg yolks they eat in the rest of their diet. Over-all, they don't get as much sat fat as most canines. They are also on mild calorie restriction diets. Butter : sturated fat Margarine : trans fat BOTH can raise total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol. Just try minimizing both intakes. Cheers, nina http://www.lipblogs.com/asweetnectarwomb/ > Butter : sturated fat > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just try minimizing both intakes. There are some margarine-like soft spreads that don't have trans fats. Personally, I don't eat them, but that's because I get my essential fatty acids from other sources. George > <asweetnectarwomb@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > BOTH can raise total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol. Once you get beyond the paranoia of these Kooks, trans fat lowers HDL. Personally, I have not eaten either butter or margarine in decades. Nor, do I particularly miss them. The whole notion of rubbing a slab of fat over a slice of bread or on a baked potato is rather a bizarre custom to begin with. I rather like red or 'new potatoes.' And, they are quite tasty all by themselves when properly cooked. Who says so? I do. :) : Butter : sturated fat : Margarine : trans fat Good quality margarine does not contain transfat. SignatureJuhana ur absolutely right... now trans fat is on the food label... just check b4 u buy... ;D cheers, nina http://www.asweetnectarwomb.lipblogs.com YES! Who says so? I do. :) NO Grains are villain ;-) SignatureJoe W. T2 Nov '05 30mg Actos, 500mg Cinnamon, 80-100 carbs/day & 30 minute walk & BowFlex 3x/week > YES! > > Who says so? I do. :) Butter never hurt me. Grain products, on the other hand, are what got me fat in the first place. 260/200/200 4/27/06 > NO Grains are villain ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Who says so? I do. :) > YES! > > Who says so? I do. :) I say it's not in moderation amounts. And I'm a mom. We have superpowers dontcha know. Carmen > > YES! > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Carmen Make that "moderate amounts". One of the momly superpowers - proper grammar - requires more coffee intake than I've had thus far. <G> Carmen > I go to a doctor who says butter is not really bad for you-- maybe he > means in comparison > to the usual margarine sold in stores---also that eggs are not bad for > you --comment ?? Butter is around 50% saturated fat so it isn't healthy although there are other fats that have a higher percent of saturated fats. I use some butter for flavor and for corn on the cob, but the two of us together use less than a pound a year. I don't use margarine. I do use vegetable oils in small amounts and find spray on canola oil a nice convenience. I do use sesame butter and other nut butters as a replacement for shortening. Eggs are a good source of nutrients with the whites containing no fat. The yolks have fat of which 40% is saturated. The yolks contain many vitiamins, so it is a good idea to eat a few (3-4) a week. So just throw away half of the yolks to keep your saturated fat and cholesterol down. Egg have a protein efficacy of 93.7%, making them one of the best sources of protein. Be sure to cook your eggs until they aren't runny to kill any pathogenic bacteria. SignatureRon >> I go to a doctor who says butter is not really bad for you-- maybe he >> means in comparison [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I do use sesame butter and other nut butters as a replacement for > shortening. Good choices. I find sesame butter particularly delicious. My wife also adds it to hummus. Sesame butter: yummmm! > Eggs are a good source of nutrients with the whites containing no fat. > The yolks have fat of which 40% is saturated. The yolks contain many > vitiamins, so it is a good idea to eat a few (3-4) a week. So just > throw away half of the yolks to keep your saturated fat and cholesterol > down. Or give it do your dogs with their lean meat! George > Egg have a protein efficacy of 93.7%, making them one of the best > sources of protein. > > Be sure to cook your eggs until they aren't runny to kill any > pathogenic bacteria. :: I do :: use vegetable oils in small amounts and find spray on canola oil a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : delicious. My wife also adds it to hummus. : Sesame butter: yummmm! In addition to tahini (sesame butter) I also use sliced avokado on bread. That makes a very delicious sandwich if you season it with some herb or garlic and top it with some other sliced vegetables like sweet pepper or tomato. SignatureJuhana > Eggs are a good source of nutrients with the whites containing no fat. > The yolks have fat of which 40% is saturated. The yolks contain many > vitiamins, so it is a good idea to eat a few (3-4) a week. So just > throw away half of the yolks to keep your saturated fat and cholesterol > down. There are some egg producers that add omega-3 fatty acids to the poultry feed resulting in eggs with high omega-3 content. SignatureRon Everyone who claims not to be consufed is just a presumptuous liar The truth is that we're all resorting to nutritional studies to choose what to believe and what to do in our everyday life. If it weren't for those studies there wouldn't even be this newsgroup or all these controversials about nutrition And those studies are clearly controversial Why the studies that back up the position of those who claim that cholesterol and sat fat are harmless and we should just eat animal foods or that we're healthier while on ketosis should be more or less reliable than studies that back up the opposite position I agreed for some time that since the body produces its own saturated fat and cholesterol dietary sat fat and cholesterol had not much impact on one's health either way But, I would like to know how Atkins/Bernstein/Eades supporters would explain this: Angiology. 2000; 51(10):817-26. People following high fat diets had a very dangerous 40% reduction of coronary blood flow. On the other hand those consuming less animal foods and more plant foods increased their coronary blood flow and literally cleaned their clogged arteries Maybe the truth is in the middle: more plant foods and less animal foods like the diet of all primates and animals who are not naturally equipped to hunt a lot of their foods I'm confused, and you should be too ...whether ideology, belief, guru, diet you're following there are as many evidences against it as the evidences pro it are David > Everyone who claims not to be consufed is just a presumptuous liar Bullshit! And, I do not mind saying so. This is sci.med.nutrition rather than a gourmet food ng. There is a difference A-Hole. Just thought that you might want to know that you are nothing but a buffoon. Mr. Natural-Health ha scritto: > > Everyone who claims not to be consufed is just a presumptuous liar > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just thought that you might want to know that you are nothing but a > buffoon. Why do you trust some studies/evidences more than others if not because of personal faith? This is sci.religion.med.nutrition and couldn't be otherwise not because of us but because of the contoversial nature of nutritional and epidemiological studies David Mr. Natural-Health ha scritto: > > Everyone who claims not to be consufed is just a presumptuous liar > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just thought that you might want to know that you are nothing but a > buffoon. Why do you trust some studies/evidences more than others if not because of personal faith? This is sci.religion.med.nutrition and couldn't be otherwise not because of us but because of the controversial nature of nutritional and epidemiological studies David > > Everyone who claims not to be consufed is just a presumptuous liar > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just thought that you might want to know that you are nothing but a > buffoon. >But, I would like to know how Atkins/Bernstein/Eades supporters would >explain this: Angiology. 2000; 51(10):817-26. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >foods and more plant foods increased their coronary blood flow and >literally cleaned their clogged arteries Davide, I could perhaps hazard a critique if you told us more. Angiology's online archives only go back to 2004. http://ang.sagepub.com/ Want to give us a title, author and abstract? My first questions in this study are going to be: * How much and what kind of starch were they eating? I'm pretty convinced that the combination of high blood glucose and high fat will plug your arteries. Something has to go. Cutting fat is one strategy, as long as your pancreas is in good shape. Cutting starch can also work. * How much MUFA were they getting? What kind of PUFA? What did their omega-3 / 6 profiles look like? Hey, I admit that fat is horrible for you. It's just that carbohydrate is even worse. :-) DRT David R. Throop ha scritto: > >But, I would like to know how Atkins/Bernstein/Eades supporters would > >explain this: Angiology. 2000; 51(10):817-26. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Hey, I admit that fat is horrible for you. It's just that > carbohydrate is even worse. :-) I agree with you, I think that keeping your arteries healthy has lot to do with keeping your BGs under control. But what I'm really interested in is the adverse effect of the low carb diet: 40% reduction in coronary blood flow and worsening of arteries blockage Fleming RM. The effect of high-protein diets on coronary blood flow Angiology. 2000; 51(10):817-26. It's just a small study with small subject but this doesn't explain the decrease in coronary bloof flow in the low carb group I tend to agree more with the explanation as to why the thousands of studies showing a correlation between cholesterol and diseases are flawed. It has been claimed that cholesterol accumulates to protect the arteries from damage when they're already weakened so they would find cholesterol plaques and higher serum cholesterol levels in people with earth disease but the correlation would be inverse There's a similar correlation flaw used against low fat diets. It has been claimed by low carb gurus that there's a correlation between low sat fat and cholesterol levels and depression and suicide. But the correlation is inverse: the depressed and suicidal person lose its appetite, eat less and less animal and fatty foods. Davide >Fleming RM. >The effect of high-protein diets on coronary blood flow Angiology. >2000; 51(10):817-26. > It's just a small study with small subject but this doesn't explain > the decrease in coronary blood flow in the low carb group http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1 1108325&dopt=Citation is the URL for the PMID abstract. Very intersting study and I've bookmarked it with my other links to plaque regression reports. Fleming has his own book out, "Stop Inflammation Now!: A Step-by-Step Plan to Prevent, Treat, and Reverse Inflammation - the Leading Cause of Heart Disease and Related Conditions" Davide, do you have the original article? WHat was the diet plan that the non-high-protein group was on? How high was the protein consumption in the HP arm? I would suspect that at least some of the difference from the two arms was what the HP subjects dropped from their diet - fiber, vegetables, various phytonutrients - rather than the effect of the protein per se. David Throop throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: >>Fleming RM. >>The effect of high-protein diets on coronary blood flow Angiology. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >David Throop From the abstract, it appears that the High Protein diet group was self-selected, not part of the randomized study design. I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from comparing those who decided to "High-protein" diet with those who didn't. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu Jim Chinnis ha scritto: > throop@cs.utexas.edu (David R. Throop) wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > -- > Jim Chinnis The whole study was online once But isn't the correlation at least too suspect to believe it's a coincidence? The people claiming to be on a high-protein/fat, low carb diet had the coronary blood flow reduced of 40% the people claiming to consume more vegetables, fruits and other plant foods and less animal foods had an improvement in coronary blood flow But I think that it could be not the animal food, fat per se but the lack of vegetables, greens, fruits and hence their antioxidants and phitochemicals ... So, what about the guru claiming that we don't need green, vegetables, fruits and any other plant foods or the elements they contain? Davide > So, what about the guru claiming that we don't need green, > vegetables, fruits and any other plant foods or the elements they > contain? I dunno who you are talking about. But you started out this thread saying you were questioning Bernstein's views. That's definitely not his position - he tells people to eat plenty of veggies and greens and he specificly warns against trying to get all your micronutrients from supplements. He does warn against high starch fruits and veggies, (for diabetics) but encourages the other ones. Eh, have you actually read any Bernstein, or are you reacting to something somebody said that he said? DRT David R. Throop ha scritto: > > So, what about the guru claiming that we don't need green, > > vegetables, fruits and any other plant foods or the elements they > > contain? > > I dunno who you are talking about. I'm certainly not talking about Atkins, Eades, Bernstein since they stress the importance of vegetables ... or at least of those phyto nutrients found only in plants I'm talking about people like Groves or the author of Homo Optimus, people that believe we're carnivorous like tigers or lions and that eating plant is useless or dangerous > But you started out this thread > saying you were questioning Bernstein's views. No, I said "I would Atkins, Protein Power, Bernstein explain this?" referring to the study according to which the low-carb high-protein group had a 40% reduction of coronary blood flow unlike the less animal fats and more plant foods group that had an increse in coronary blood flow >That's definitely not > his position - he tells people to eat plenty of veggies and greens and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Eh, have you actually read any Bernstein, or are you reacting to > something somebody said that he said? I was not talking about Bernstein when I said "people who think we should eat nothing but animal foods and should eschew every kind of plant food as we don't need them" I was referring to the human-is-carnivorous crowd Davide Saturated fat is bad. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring tons of evidence. > Saturated fat is bad. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring tons of > evidence. How much is tolerable? Will adding more monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat allow one to consume more saturated fat? SignatureRon Ron Peterson ha scritto: > > Saturated fat is bad. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring tons of > > evidence. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Ron According to the sat fats are good theory it's the other way around, sat fat would make PUFA more tolerable ... which suits what I said about healthy population as the fat they consume: nuts and fish contain both PUFA and saturated fats Davide > Ron Peterson ha scritto: > > > Saturated fat is bad. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring tons of > > > evidence. > > How much is tolerable? Will adding more monounsaturated and > > polyunsaturated fat allow one to consume more saturated fat? > According to the sat fats are good theory it's the other way around, > sat fat would make PUFA more tolerable ... which suits what I said > about healthy population as the fat they consume: nuts and fish contain > both PUFA and saturated fats Olive oil is about 20% saturated fats, but it seems to give good results even when used to replace carbohydrates. I think that most nuts have similar levels of saturated fats, so I don't see any reasonably priced diet being lower in saturated fats than that. SignatureRon >Olive oil is about 20% saturated fats, but it seems to give good What type of olive oil is that? Or do you count in the squalene content which in case would give around 17% (7% sat fat and 10% squalene (which is what solidifies in olive oils) in the fridge). > >Olive oil is about 20% saturated fats, but it seems to give good > What type of olive oil is that? Or do you count in the squalene > content which in case would give around 17% (7% sat fat and 10% > squalene (which is what solidifies in olive oils) in the fridge). I don't remember which web site I was looking at. http://agric.ucdavis.edu/crops/oilseed/saff2oil.htm has olive oil as having 2.2% stearic fatty acid and 11% palmitic which is significantly less than what I wrote. Another site had squalene at about 0.7% in olive oil. SignatureRon >Another site had squalene at about 0.7% in olive oil. Depending on habitat of growing, subspecies etc. etc. it vary btw 0 and 10% :-( But a simple test is to put the bottle in the fridge and see if it forms solid matter. (Rape seed oil with about the same saturated fats do not solidify at all) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.